Asmongold regularly polarizes with his political takes, yet this time the backlash is not driven by partisan disagreement, but by the unsettling logic underpinning his argument.
A viral clip featuring Asmongold has sparked debate not because it takes a political stance, but because it illustrates how easily hypothetical arguments can detach themselves from the reality of civilian suffering.
Military Intervention As A Cost–Benefit Analysis
In a recent livestream, Asmongold reacted to an interview with U.S. President Donald Trump addressing the situation in Venezuela. The discussion followed recent U.S. military actions in the country, including airstrikes and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which marked a major escalation in U.S. involvement.
As the discussion unfolded, viewers in chat asked whether he had shifted his previously expressed skepticism toward military interventions and nation-building. In response, Asmongold outlined what he described as a pragmatic exception to his general opposition:
“Well, I'm generally against it, but there are some instances where I'd be ok with it. […] If we can get enough money out of the place that we're intervening in and we can effectively make it worthwhile for us, then I'd be ok with it.”
Summarizing his stance later in the exchange, he said:
"So it is all about whether we are making money out of it."
Asmongold explained that his point of reference was the well-being of U.S. citizens rather than abstract principles. When a viewer pressed him on whether he would hold that position even if it cost civilian lives, his blunt reply was:
"Yeah, who gives a s***."
While this statement suggests a clear disconnect from Asmongold’s earlier positions on military intervention, the more relevant issue raised by the exchange lies in the broader political implications of such a stance.
Why Civilian Lives Are Not A Variable In Rules-Based Governance
The core problem with this statement lies in its implicit classification of human lives as collateral damage within political interventions. Human beings cannot simply be dismissed in this way, a fact that becomes immediately clear to anyone the moment they themselves are placed in such a situation. Precisely because this line of thinking has historically produced chaos across the globe, institutions such as the United Nations and the framework of international law were established in the first place, to ensure that international relations are not governed by the law of the stronger.
It is important to note that this perspective does not belong to either the political left or the political right. It is a foundational principle of modern international politics, one that the United States itself played a central role in shaping. Against that backdrop, it is reasonable to expect the U.S. to adhere to the very standards it helped establish.
Statements that frame civilian deaths as an acceptable cost in pursuit of financial or strategic gain suggest a failure to learn from the lessons of two World Wars. Treating civilian lives as expendable in service of state interests is, in effect, a reintroduction of might-makes-right logic into political discourse. This is precisely the kind of reasoning many had hoped could be relegated to history rather than resurfacing in discussions of 21st-century geopolitics. In that sense, the significance of such statements lies not in their bluntness, but in what their underlying logic implies for the durability of the rules-based international system.
What is your stand on this topic? Let us know in the comments!
